How GISS Has Totally Corrupted Reykjavik’s Temperatures
By Paul Homewood
GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
Now that GHCN have created a false warming trend in Iceland and Greenland , and GISS have amended every single temperature record on their database for Reykjavik going back to 1901 (except for 2010 and 2011), we should have a look at the overall effect.
The red line reflects the actual temperature records provided by the Iceland Met Office and shows quite clearly a period around 1940, followed by another 20 years later, which were much warmer than the 1970’s. GISS, as the blue line shows, have magically made this warm period disappear, by reducing the real temperatures by up to nearly 2 degrees.
Meanwhile the Iceland Met Office say that “The GHCN "corrections" are grossly in error in the case of Reykjavik”.
N.B. GISS figures, as shown on their graph are per Meteorological Year , i.e. Dec-Nov. I have recalibrated to Calendar Year to get a true comparison with the Met Office figures.
Trackbacks
- Another GISS miss, this time in Iceland | Watts Up With That?
- Another GISS miss, this time in Iceland | TaJnB | TheAverageJoeNewsBlogg
- Spot the anomalous period! | suyts space
- They did it again « The right-wing liberal
- They did it again « Virginia Virtucon
- Data Crime: GISS Caught Red-Handed Manipulaing Data To Produce Arctic Climate History Revision
- the climate fix is on…lying, still losing | pindanpost
- Reykjavik Iceland: Deliberate Temperature Manipulation
- Oh Nooos!!!! El Nino cometh!! | suyts space
- Tidens tro drabbar människan | The Climate Scam
- Kan man lita på makten? | Larsil2009's Blog
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
I occasionally download GISS data for Manhattan, KS, and the same thing goes on. Monthly averages in the late 1800s and early 1900s have been adjusted by several degrees downward between older datasets to newer ones. When you plot the new dataset numbers minus the old, you see that a dramatic warming trend has been added, mainly by adjusting these historic numbers lower.
Nice catch Paul! Keep up the good work!
Is there no requirement for the data to be verified with the local met service before entering the formal record?
Absent that, clearly GISS can do as the apocryphal night watchman, put down anything they please.
Why, I’m…shocked…
This should be the pattern all over the world, and getting worse with each “adjustment” of GISS. Same with HadCru.
Same with sea-level rises.
When you live in a bubble – NASA, NOAA, GISS, public company, it doesn’t matter – and you have to please your masters – corporate hierarchy, investment houses, politicians, it doesn’t matter – you create a monster 10% at a time. In this case, you error on the side of one warmth 10%, not much, something you can justify. Then someone else – or yourself – drops out “suspect” data that is generally cooling, but only 10%, again justifiable. You know there is UHIE, but it can’t be much, so you ignore what might, at best, be 10%. Finally, the trend algorithms you use have a warming bias, but only 10%: you need to reduce “noise” and avoid the influence of “outliers”, you see.
So, simple minor adjustments, all justifiable, but all tending to give the benefit of error to the warm side, Four 10%, together giving 147% of the more moderate result.
As time goes on, recommended projects become better, more profitable/definite/compelling. At some point reality comes in – when the THIRD leader is saddled with supporting the unsupportable (the second, or replacement leader, cannot dispute the project as he got to be the replacement by at least appearing to support his mentor’s personal cause). But that is down the road.
It is an axiom of human behaviour that bad ideas get worse with time but the support for them becomes more and more strenuous. The emperor has no clothes at the end of the story, but in the middle he is praised as never before.
What else, besides Iceland, is in the background? Peru? What other national organizations gnash their teeth while holding to the party – and funding – line?
Congrats on the guest post at Anthony’s.
That must have cromulated the stat counter. 🙂
Greetings,
With respect to this quote:
Meanwhile the Iceland Met Office say that “The GHCN “corrections” are grossly in error in the case of Reykjavik”.
Is there a public location where they have made this statement? I searched the Iceland Met office site (http://en.vedur.is/) but do not see any updates since 4 Jan 2012.
It would be nice to have for another debate I’m engaged in. I could refer to this page but coming directly from the source would be better.
Thanks
Paul – try knmi climate explorer :
http://climexp.knmi.nl/getstations.cgi
I quickly glanced at the Reykjavik data, and it appears to tally with the original (“pre-Hansenized”) data..
Go to the link, click on “monthly station data”
Highlight field for mean temperature (GHCN all), then find stations near 62N, -20E.
That should bring up a list of all Icelandic stations, including Reykjavik….
Click on “get data” then “raw data”, and away you go….
Hope this helps
Learn about global temperatures, climate change, and the fact that the Great Global Warming Debate does not even exist …
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2022
Nobody denies temperatures have been increasing for a couple of hundred years.
What has caused this, whether it will continue and to what level are all issues that are very much still being debated.
<– lives in iceland, and i can say that the GISS numbers are wrong… since i was a child our winters have gotten what feels like shorter and less cold… although in the past there were few years when the summers were super warm, and winters super cold, but generally its felt like a steady increase in over all heat, in accordance with the whole solar system heating up